The Great Replacement (Part One): Immigration in the UK

Legal Disclaimer

In October 2023, the Online Safety Act came into effect in the UK. Under this legislation, the providers of online platforms operating in the UK — including Amazon, Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Apple, ByteDance (TikTok), Meta(Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), Microsoft (LinkedIn), and X Holdings Corp. (X) — have a duty and obligation to censor and impose restrictions. Compliance fines are set at up to £18 million, or 10% of global turnover. Censorship of UK citizens’ speech must be imposed in compliance with the dictates of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) — which is the regulatory authority for the broadcasting and telecommunications industries in the UK, of the UK Government and, ultimately, of the transnational technocracies in which it has membership — including the United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which successive UK Governments have granted authority over the freedom of speech of its citizens. 

Under Section 179 of the Act (‘False communications offence’), a person commits an offence if (a) the person sends a message that (b) conveys information that ‘the person knows to be false’, and (c) at the time of sending it, the person‘intended the message or information in it to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience’, and (d) the person has ‘no reasonable excuse’ for sending the message.

However, under Section 180 of the Act, recognised news publishers, licensed broadcasters and all mainstream media outlets, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, cannot commit an offence under Section 179, legally absolving them from publishing what they know to be misinformation or even disinformation.

As someone not protected from arrest, prosecution and sentencing by Section 180, it is incumbent upon me, under Section 179, to state that (a) all the data compiled in my book has been published by the United Nations, the European Commission, the UK Government, the Ministry of Justice, the Office for National Statistics, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Social Mobility Commission, The House of Commons Library, The House of Lords Library, the Resolution Foundation, Ipsos Mori, Statista, Wikipedia, and other news publishers recognised under the Online Safety Act 2023.

It is, therefore, (b) to the best of my knowledge, accurate and not false. In publishing it, my intent is to make known to the British public the official data about UK immigration. From this data, I draw tentative but logical conclusions that — unlike the UK Government and mainstream media, which have actively suppressed public debate — I invite the reader to interrogate and challenge. 

By providing the empirical data for debate on a topic of national concern, (c) I do not intend to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to my audience, as the UK Government has done by threatening, arresting and imprisoning members of the UK public who raise their concerns either in demonstrations or online; nor do I have any reason to think that publishing this data or drawing my conclusions will cause such harm. 

On the contrary, (d) my reason for communicating and analysing this data is to raise public awareness of the reality of replacement immigration, its policy origins, its corporate lobbying, its economic motivations, its ideological promotion, its political implementation, its legal enforcement, and of the impact it has already had and will have in the future on the British people and the UK

In doing so, my aim is to provide a discursive framework within which the people of Britain can discuss immigration free of the accusations of racism, dismissals as a conspiracy theorist, charges of hate speech or threats of arrest with which this much-needed debate has been silenced and criminalised in the UK today.

Context to the Demonstrations

On 29 July, 2024, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, the 17-year-old son of Rwandan immigrants, stabbed 13 people11 of them childrenkilling three girls aged 6, 7, and 9 years old. The following day, 30 July, a demonstration was held in Southport, the scene of the attack. A seaside town in Lancashire in the northwest of England, Southport has an overwhelmingly English population, with 95% being White and over 58% identifying as Christian. Out of an Asian, Arab, Black, and mixed-race population of 4,201, 1,082 are Muslim. They are served by one mosque,  which is one of 2,356 across the UK. In March 2024, ostensibly in response to the genocide it is funding in the Gaza Strip, the UK Government committed to providing £117 million for the protection of UK mosques over the next four years.

As the day wore on, the mosque was attacked by several people, possibly protesters who had identified the murderer — incorrectly or not, as Muslim — but possibly also, given the modus operandi of protest management in the UK, by undercover police sent to create the headlines under which this demonstration could be co-opted by the state to its own ends. Whatever the truth, in response, all the protesters were immediately denounced by the police, media, and politicians as ‘far-right’.

The same day, gangs of machete-wielding boysBlack, White, mixed race, and Middle Easternwere recorded fighting in the streets of Southend-on-Sea, another seaside town in Essex at the other end of England. By now an everyday occurrence in the UK, the national media made little mention of this at the time, and signally failed to plaster their front pages with denunciations of immigrants as gangsters and criminals, while the Essex Police, who stood around and watched, described the scenes as ‘regrettable’.

The following day, 31 July, another vigil for the dead girls, organised under the banner ‘Enough is Enough’, was held outside Downing Street in London, the seat of UK Government, where — presumably on the orders of London’s Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Khan — it was brutally attacked by the riot division of the Metropolitan Police Force. They were recorded setting police dogs on the crowd, snatching random passers-by, punching members of the public repeatedly in the face, arresting an apparently predetermined number of people (111 were arrested; an extraordinarily high number for such a small crowd), and illegally kettling the remainder for hours. Like the people of Southport, the victims of this assault were also denounced by the Government, media, and police as ‘far-right’. Further demonstrations were held in Manchester, Hartlepool, and Aldershot.

The next day, 1 August, the newly-elected Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declared that the nationwide response to the Southport murders were not protests but acts of criminal disorder and violence, and promised to employ the full force of the law to identify, track down, arrest, prosecute and imprison — without bail — anyone who participated, including on social media. To this end, he announced the formation of what he called a ‘standing army’ to suppress and criminalise the repetition of such protests, the rollout of facial recognition cameras to increase the capacity of UK police to spy on the general public, and the wider use of Serious Crime Prevention Orders to limit the movements of UK citizens. In addition, Starmer reminded social media platforms that, under the Online Safety Act 2023, they were responsible for censoring its contents, which he blamed for spreading what he called ‘disinformation’. Over the next two days, further demonstrations were held in Sunderland, Liverpool, Leeds, Nottingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Leeds, Blackpool, Hull, and Belfast.

It became apparent to many observers that, by promising to track down and prosecute ‘anyone’ participating in a demonstration, the Prime Minister didn’t mean the UK’s Muslim population, to whose community leaders he promised further funding for mosques in the UK. Over the following week, footage was circulated on social media showing large numbers of Muslim men chanting the Takbir (‘Allahu Akbar!’) and taking to the streets of cities in the Midlands and North of England openly armed with wooden sticks, knives, and machetes. In one video widely shared on social media, police in riot gear were recorded assuring the leaders of these vigilante gangs that they were there ‘to help and protect’ them.

The next day, Sunday, 4 August, in response to reports by the Government, media, and police that the ‘far-right’ were planning demonstrations in 30 locations across England, counter demonstrations were organised by the Socialist Workers Party, the protest arm of the Labour Party that has formed the new UK Government, under their customary banner of ‘Stand Up to Racism’. Over the following week, Stand Up to Racism organised 22 protests across the UK, including in London, Manchester, and Birmingham. Despite the fact that the ‘far-right’ demonstrations largely failed to materialise, on Thursday, 8 August, across what is perceived to be the political and class spectrum, Left and Right, tabloid and broadsheet, every UK newspaper was united in proclaiming victory over ‘hate’, ‘thugs’, ‘racism’, and the‘far-right’. The front page of The Daily Mirror declared: ‘Standing Together: Thousands of anti-racism protesters turn out to thwart far-right thugs’. The Daily Mail proclaimed: ‘Night anti-hate marchers faced down the thugs’. The Guardian trumpeted: ‘Thousands take to the street to counter threat from far right’. And The Times announced:‘Thousands take to street to confront the far right’. Interestingly, each of these newspapers reproduced exactly the same photograph, which was taken in Walthamstow, East London, where the ‘far-right’ were conspicuous by their absence. The UK hadn’t seen such consensus since it joined the US-led proxy-war in Ukraine or, before that, the two years of lockdown restrictions on our rights and freedoms.

Newspaper front pages

In my opinion, even if it’s no longer safe to say so in the UK, if the murders in Southport were an isolated incident, the British public would be undoubtedly shocked and angry, but, in general, would accept that the murderer must have been suffering from some psychological illness to commit such appalling and apparently meaningless acts. But they aren’t. On 18 July, 11 days before the Southport murders, in response to the taking of Romanian children into social services, riots of Roma and Asians had broken out in Leeds, from which police were filmed fleeing — as it was widely notedthey had not fled in Southport or Downing Street or the other demonstrations across England.

On 23 July, less than a week before, two Pakistani men, both second-generation immigrants, assaulted police officers in Manchester Airport, and when the footage of the police responding violently was shown on social media, demonstrations by Muslims were held across England. The next day, on 24 July, a British Army officer was stabbed repeatedly by a Nigerian immigrant. In April 2024, the last of a grooming gang of 24 men, almost all of whom are Pakistanis, were sentenced for the sexual abuse, rape, and trafficking of eight underage English girls in West Yorkshire for a period of 13 years between 1999 and 2012. In May 2024, another grooming gang of teenagers from Syria and Kuwait was sentenced for repeatedly raping and torturing a 13-year-old English girl in Newcastle between 2018 and 2019. Beyond that is the exampleand what appears to be the model — of the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, in which at least 1,400 girls, the majority of whom were White and aged between 11 and 18, were groomed, sexually abused, gang-raped, and trafficked by mostly Pakistani men between 1997 and 2013. As is widely known, it subsequently emerged that Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police, both of whom knew about these appalling crimes, refused to arrest the perpetrators for fear of accusations of racism and reprisals from the large Pakistani population. In September last year, ten years since the independent inquiry was published, seven of this gang, of which 60 have been arrested, were sentenced to a total of 106 years, an average of 15 years each. And in the Midlands and North of England, at least, no one has forgotten the bombing of the Manchester Arena in May 2017 by a British-born Muslim man that killed 22 people and injured over 1,000, and the attempts by the UK government and media to divorce its causes from either the effects of mass immigration or the waging of wars in the Middle East by the UK military, even though the perpetrator cited the UK’s support for the US-led invasion of Syria as his motivation.

As a result of these crimes and many more, it is increasingly felt by White working-class communities in England, among whom this increasingly large population of immigrants are housed, that these attacks are not the acts of mentally unstable individuals. They feel that they reflect — however faithfully or not — the religious teachings of a culture that has identified — however mistakenly — the White English people among whom they live as their enemies, as the cause of their failures, as the barrier to their advancement, as the perpetrators of the war crimes against their own countries or other Muslim countries, and as infidels of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. They believe that Muslim immigrants perceive White women and children, as a consequence, as ‘easy meat’ for the sexual predators who have brought terror to the Midlands and North of England for decades, but who, in the perception of the White English working class — again, rightly or wrongly — appear immune from prosecution from a police force that appears to be obeying orders from local councils, municipal authorities and central government not to antagonise the ethnic frictions consequent upon UK’s policy of mass immigration and wars of aggression.

This is the social context in which the response to the Southport murders took shape. The attacks and murders in Southport were the trigger for the long-suppressed grievances of two communities divided by race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and history that have been thrown together by successive UK Governments with no thought for the consequences for the social fabric of the UK; or, perhaps more accurately — as we shall see — who have been thrown together with the intention of changing that social fabric. In response to these attacks and the social unrest they have caused, the UK should be having a serious, open, and long-overdue debate about mass immigration, its origins, purposes, and consequences. Instead, the exact opposite has happened.

On the instruction of our Prime Minister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, the police have arrested people for‘inaccurate’ social media posts and for expressing ‘anti-immigration’ views. Courts have sentenced mere bystanders at demonstrations to lengthy sentences in jail without the chance of bail. On 14 August, the Home Office boasted on social media, no less, that it had already made ‘more than 1,000 arrests’, with the promise that what it called these‘criminals’ will face the full force of the law, having apparently decided in advance, and contrary to the presumption of innocence under UK law, that the courts will find them guilty. As of 1 September, 2024, 1,280 arrests and nearly 800 charges had been made in relation to the civil unrest following the Southport murders, including sentences of two years or more for social media posts. A 51-year-old English man was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for posting a photograph of Asians wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster with the caption ‘Coming to a town near you’. A 30-year-old English man was sentenced to eight months for imitating how Muslims pray, apparently making a witness feel like she ‘didn’t belong in her own home city’. An 18-year-old English man was sentenced to two years and four months for kicking a police van. And a 21-year-old English man received two years for encouraging rioters on his Instagram account.

In contrast to these exaggerated custodial sentences, in September 2023, an Eritrean immigrant convicted of rape didn’t even go to prison, but was let out on bail, the conditions of which he broke the following month, leading to a police manhunt. In August last year it was revealed that a Nigerian immigrant who killed a 14-year-old English boy with a machete in November 2022 will be released after just six months of his sentence. In September 2024, a failed Indian asylum seeker was sentenced to three years for drugging and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl a year after completing a prior 14-month sentence for assaulting police officers. In July 2023, a Jordanian asylum-seeker who assaulted a WPC was fined £26 and excused community service because he cannot speak English. And the Pakistani brothers who last July violently assaulted police officers in Manchester Airport, including breaking a WPC’s nose, remained without charge and on bail until December, 2024.

Already corroborated by the cover-up perpetrated by the police and council in Rotherham, the exaggerated prison sentences for English protestors and social media users have brought forth further accusations of two-tier policing. In response, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley, has declared that such accusations endanger the lives of police officers and are therefore themselves criminal acts. In apparent confirmation that UK jails are now to be used for political prisoners rather than criminals, on 10 September, 2024, the Government released some 1,750 prisonersearly after serving 40 percent of their sentence, as part of a larger plan to free up 5,500 prison beds. Initially restricted to prisoners serving sentences of under five years, in October a further 1,100 prisoners serving longer fixed-sentenceswere released onto the UK’s already violent streets.

What the British public didn’t know at the time is that, after arresting Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, the Merseyside Police Service had entered his family home and found, in his possession, a PDF file titled ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual’, which they identified as a manual likely to be used by someone preparing to commit an act of terrorism. They also found evidence of the production of a biological toxin called ‘ricin’,which, as a terrorism agent, can be used as a powder, a mist, a pellet, or dissolved in water or weak acid. In a carefully curated meeting with a compliant media, Keir Starmer has admitted that he was informed of all this. Indeed, it turns out that Rudakubana was referred to the Government’s counter-terrorism programme, Prevent, three times between December 2019 and April 2021. Whether Starmer then instructed the UK media to present Rudakubana, as every newspaper and news programme did, as a Welsh child who in 2018 had appeared in a BBC Children in Need campaign video is a moot point. 

What is clear is that Starmer instructed the UK’s police forces and criminal courts to arrest and expedite the exaggerated sentencing of the UK public, not because they were spreading misinformation or disinformation but, to the contrary, because they had identified the truth. The truth Starmer and his Government tried to conceal is that this was a racially and religiously motivated terrorist attack, carried out by a second-generation immigrant who, despite being born within these isles, had failed to integrate into our society and its values. On the contrary, Rudakubana had been radicalised against the nation, and people who had welcomed his family into its midst by an ideology and religion incompatible with and hostile to the United Kingdom and to White people in general. The people demonstrating across England and voicing their fears online were correct in their suspicions and fears, and Starmer used the full force of the state to silence, arrest, and imprison them for speaking the truth.

Newspaper front pages about the riots

To some of us, none of this is surprising, except perhaps in how long it has taken for the authoritarianism and violence demonstrated by the Government and police under lockdown to return. But after Boris Johnson oversaw the wave of intrusive legislation made into UK law under lockdown and Rishi Sunak oversaw the UK’s collaboration in the proxywar in Ukraine, Keir Starmer was always going to implement the next phase of the Great Reset, with facial recognition, digital identity, online censorship, and city lockdowns all imminent. But what is behind the latest and steep descent into government authoritarianism and, in this country, that ‘slimy Anglicised form of Fascism’ predicted by George Orwell?

UK Immigration Policy

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we are constantly told by the ideologues of multiculturalism that the history of Britain is a history of immigration. There has, of course, been immigration to these isles throughout our history: Jews and Flemings in the Middle Ages; Africans during the Atlantic Slave Trade; Protestants fleeing Catholic France in the Seventeenth Century; more Jews fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century. But none of these groups contributed more than tens of thousands of immigrants at most. Immigration that has had a qualitative impact on the racial demographic of the population of the UK is a recent phenomenon.

 
Level of annual net migration to the UK
  • In the Census of 1951, the first to record those born abroad, just 4.3% of the population of England and Wales, some 2,118,600 people, were foreign-born. This included 162,339 Poles, who were offered British citizenship in 1947 after the Second World War, and 470,000 Irish. Seventy years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 760,000 Poles in England and Wales, the number of Irish had declined to 300,000, and White British made up just 74.4 percent of the population, a more than 20% fall in just 70 years.
  • In 1948, the British Nationality Act granted anyone living in British Commonwealth nations the right to live and work in the UK, and between 1948 and 1973 around 500,000 immigrants from the Caribbean settled here. In the 2021 Census, there were an estimated 623,115 Black Caribbeans in England and Wales, and a further 513,040 mixed-race (White and Black) Caribbean. This was a total of 1,136,155 Caribbeans, or 1.64% of the population. 42.8% of these live in London.
  • Between 1968 and 1974, over 70,000 Indians were welcomed into the UK from Kenya, Uganda, and Zanzibar, when Governments revoked their work visas. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, which first subjected Commonwealth citizens to immigration controls, and the Immigration Act 1971, which required immigrants whose parents or grandparents were not born in the UK to obtain work permits, curbed some of the effects of the British Nationality Act. In the 2021 Census, there were 1.86 million Indians in England and Wales, of which 16%were from East Africa.
  • Following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which granted all EU citizens the right to live and work in the UK, net migration to the UK was 50,000 immigrants per year, mostly from the European Union. Nearly 30 years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 287,000 Italians, 237,000 Portuguese, 177,000 Spanish, 128,000 French, and 85,000 German immigrants living in the UK.
  • After the election of the New Labour Government in 1997, net immigration to the UK more than trebled to an average of 165,000 per year. In furtherance of this goal, the Human Rights Act 1998 protected refugees and asylum seekers from being returned to countries where they face the risk of persecution, with the obligation falling on the UK state to demonstrate they were not.
 
Top 10 non-UK only national identities
  • Following the election of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010, net migration to the UK dropped marginally to 200,000 per year, but by 2014, it had risen again to over 300,000, and until 2019, before lockdown, it averaged 275,000 per year.
  • After the expansion of the EU to Eastern Europe in 2004, net immigration to the UK increased again to an average of 250,000 per year. Seventeen years later, in the 2021 Census, there were 593,000 Poles and 146,000 Lithuanians living in the UK.
  • As a result of Romania joining the EU in 2007, there were 477,000 Romanians living in the UK by 2021.
  • After initially dropping under lockdown restrictions on travel to the UK, net immigration since 2021, largely from the Indian subcontinent and Sub-Saharan Africa, has risen today to around 700,000 per year, considerably more than double the most it has ever been previously. This exponential increase in immigration since the 2021 Census is where I want to focus.
The number of Indian, Nigerian and Pakistani nationals arriving in the UK

Between 2021 and 2023, 670,000 Indians, 310,000 Nigerians, 166,000 Pakistanis, 69,000 Bangladeshis, 59,000 Zimbabweans, 55,000 Ghanaians, and 40,000 Sri Lankans entered the UK as immigrants. That’s a total of 1.369 million immigrants, or more than half the population of Birmingham, the UK’s second-largest city, in just three years. 

The other country from which a sudden increase in immigrants have come is China, with 274,000 immigrants arriving since 2021, bringing the total up to 1.643 million. However, I would guess these are mostly students from Hong Kong, coming here in the wake of the 2019 anti-extradition protests and the subsequent prosecutions, and will likely reduce in numbers when they find out the state of the UK, economically and politically.

Overseas-born population in the United Kingdom by country of birth and sex
Between July 2020 and June 2021, ending just six months into this period of increased immigration, 9.6 million foreign-born nationals were living in the UK. That’s more than the population of London, and it’s 14.5% of the total UK population. Of these 9.6 million, 896,000 were Indians, 456,000 Pakistanis, 312,000 Nigerians, 223,000 Bangladeshis, 131,000 Sri Lankans, 130,000 Ghanaians, and 122,000 Zimbabweans. That’s a total of 2.27 million immigrants from just these seven countries living in the UK in June 2021. 
Estimates of the EU- and non-EU-born population of England and Wales

By June 2023, there were 11,439,000 foreigners living in England and Wales alone; 3,395,000 from the EU, and 8,044,000 from outside the EU. Not counting immigration to Scotland and Northern Ireland, this was an increase of 1.8 million in just two years from the June 2021 Census. Indeed, out of a total population of 60,854,727 in England and Wales, nearly 19% were foreigners. 

The most recent statistics, however, published by the ONS last November, show that by June 2024, a further 1,207,000 long-term immigrants had come to the UK on work or study visas with their dependents. 1,034,000 of these were from non-EU countries, including 240,000 Indians, 120,000 Nigerians, 101,000 Pakistanis, 78,000 Chinese, and 36,000 Zimbabweans. Projecting this rate of immigration into the last half of 2024, for which the ONS has not yet published the data, I would estimate that there are 12.7 million foreign-born nationals living in the UK in 2025, larger than the population of Belgium, and over 18% of the UK’s population.

Long-term international immigration to the UK

To put these numbers into context and how many immigrants these countries can potentially supply to the UK, India has a population of 1.442 billion, Pakistan 245 million, Nigeria 229 million, Bangladesh 174.7 million, Ghana 34.77 million, Sri Lanka 22 million, and Zimbabwe 17 million. That’s a total of 2.165 billion people, about a quarter of the global population, and 32 times the UK’s current population of 69 million. In 2021, these seven countries (not counting China) supplied 262,000 of the new immigrants to the UK (equivalent to the population of Plymouth). In 2022 it was 508,000 immigrants (the size of Leicester). In 2023, it was 599,000 (the size of Glasgow). According to the ONS, the sudden increase in immigration from these countries is predicted to continue at the levels of 2023. This means that, under current immigration policy, we can expect a population of long-term immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa to arrive in the UK in numbers equal to or greater than the population of Glasgow every year for the foreseeable future.

Long-term net migration

Immigration, however, isn’t the only source of the resulting change in the racial and ethnic demographics of the UK. Birth rates per woman in Nigeria are 5 children, in Zimbabwe 3.8, in Ghana 3.7, in Pakistan 3.3, in India 2.1, in Sri Lanka 2.1, and in Bangladesh 1.9. So if, at the current rate, we receive six million immigrants from these countries over the next decade, of which half are women that are or will grow to be of reproductive age, these figures could easily double. In contrast, in 2019 birth rates among UK-born mothers was 73% that of foreign-born mothers.

Age-specific fertility rates

The orthodoxies of woke might insist that, as soon as someone enters the UK, they magically turn British not only in law but in every other respect, but the habits of culture are national in their origins and formation, and families from nations with far higher birth rates than the UK don’t suddenly reduce when they settle down in the UK. Indeed, in 2019, before the sudden increase in immigration from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa, the highest birth rate in the UK was among mothers born in non-EU countries in Europe (1.8 times as high as UK mothers), followed by mothers born in Africa (1.6 times as high), and the Middle East and Asia (1.45 times as high). If we take into account the large numbers of Asian and African families already living in the UK, both foreign and UK born, immigrants to the UK are reproducing at maybe double the rate of the White British population. In 10 years’ time, therefore, with current rates of immigration and reproduction, the existing population of around 4.43 million people born in the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa living in the UK will increase to well over 11 million.

Total fertility rate by migrant group

These immigration figures, moreover, don’t include the UK-born people of Asian and African ethnicity — second- and third-generation immigrants — who in June 2021 numbered 10.8 million people, 16.2% of the current UK population. Given birth rates among all UK Asians, both UK born and foreign born, compared to the declining birth rates among White Britons, which will fall well below 30 million within a generation, people of Asian and Black ethnicity in the UK will outnumber the White British population within a decade.

Ethnic group distribution

So, if this rate of immigration continues — and everything indicates that it will — two questions arise:

  1. How and where will the UK build a city the size of Glasgow every year to house them? 
  2. Given they’re not all doctors and engineers, as we are constantly assured, what have these immigrants been brought here to do?

Who Are the Immigrants?

We can begin to answer this question by asking who these immigrants are. In 2024, 36,816 people crossed the English Channel illegally. In 2023, 29,437 came to the UK by this route. In 2022, there were 45,755, the highest number since figures began to be collected in 2018. Since 2018, when the numbers started to be recorded, more than 150,000 people have entered the UK this way. In the 12 months leading to September 2024, Afghanis made up the largest number of illegal arrivals (4,859), followed by Iranians (3,895), Syrians (3,385), Vietnamese (3,307), Eritreans (2,171), Iraqis(2,129), Turks (2,067), Sudanese, (1,937), Kuwaitis (763) and Albanians (559). With the exception of Vietnam, these are all Muslim countries. In the 12 months leading to September 2024, 99,700 of these illegal immigrants claimed asylum in the UK. One of the questions our government and media have most studiously avoided answering is why 83% of these illegal immigrants are male, and more than 40 per cent are between 25 and 39 years old, or what has come to be called ‘fighting age’. As with legal immigration, these figures have increased dramatically since 2021. Between 2018 and 2021, 16,500 people crossed the English Channel illegally, but once again, 87.4% of these were male, and 75% were between 19 and 39 years old.

In response to reports of these waves of unregistered men invading the UK via our beaches and shorelines, the UK Government and media have invented the narrative of ‘Stop the Boats’, which has successfully divided the debate over immigration in our Parliament and public forums. However, notwithstanding the figures quoted above and the concerns the British people have about the consequences for our safety, this is an invention designed to deceive the British public about the numbers of immigrants that have entered the UK since 2021, who have not entered the UK illegally but have been invited — and, as we shall see, paid to come here — by our Government.

Of the 1.03 million immigrants that entered the UK in 2023, most were foreigners on work permits with their dependants (423,000), followed by students and their dependants (389,000). Asylum seekers (81,000) made up under 13% of immigrants to the UK. None of the seven countries from which 1.369 million immigrants have entered the UK since 2021 are in a civil or foreign war. These are all economic migrants.

Long-term international immigration

There is a difference between them, however. Immigrants to the UK on study permits return in large numbers (133,000in 2023, while 112,000 came in 2020, when they might have started their degree); while those on work permits and their dependants stay here (only 49,000 emigrated in 2023 compared to 423,000 arriving). Indeed, 75,000 family members joined immigrants already here, nearly as many as claimed asylum. Immigration to the UK, therefore, is overwhelmingly of workers (204,000) and their families (294,000), with nearly half a million entering in 2023.

net migration of non-EU nationals by reason

Like the number of immigrants entering the UK, net immigration (that is, the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) has also increased significantly since 2021, and since 2018 — even before Brexit came into effect in January 2020 — more migrants have come from non-EU than from EU countries. This has been to such an extent that, over the subsequent three years, net immigration from non-EU countries was 1.382 million. 

The Government may have been compelled to implement the legally binding result of the 2016 referendum, but it has not only ignored the concerns of the British people about the levels of immigration that were largely responsible for the results of that vote but has, in addition, more than trebled the net number of immigrants from 249,000 in 2016 to a high, so far, of 764,000 in 2022. Indeed, so contemptuous have successive governments been in response to those concerns, that there will doubtless come a time when the British wish the Eastern European workers who entered the UK in such large numbers between 2004 and 2020 were still here. Instead, since 2022, immigrants from the EU have been leaving the UK, with a net emigration of 200,000 in the last two years. And they’re not alone. In even greater numbers, the British are fleeing their own country, with a net emigration of 517,000 British people leaving the UK since 2015. The real figures on the change to the racial and ethnic demographic of the UK, therefore, are even higher than the ONS reports. In the year ending June 2024, for example, net migration to the UK was 728,000, but more British and EU nationals left than arrived, with net migration respectively of minus 21,000 and 95,000. So net migration from non-EU countries was 845,000, twice the size of Bristol, in a single year.

Long-term internitional migration into and out of the United Kingdom

It’s from this data, and from the experiences of the British people it corroborates, that the idea has arisen that the people native to the British Isles are being systematically replaced in their own countries. In part two of this article, I’ll look at the policy of replacement immigration, who wrote it, who lobbied for it, and what ends it is serving.

Simon Elmer is the author of The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy? (2024). This article is from the first chapter. His other books include The Great Reset: Biopolitics for Stakeholder Capitalism (2023) and The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State (2022).